I’m not sure I agree with anything posted in this thread thus far to be honest (no disrespect intended by that).
I’m a retaker for level 2 CAIA this time around, I did the exam in Paris last Tuesday.
As a retaker I found it difficult to motivate myself to study much as I was essentially not learning anything new at this stage, and using it as a tool to get the designation on my CV.
Having said that, my experience of the program has been a positive one, it enabled me to learn some pretty interesting trading techniques (something not covered much on the CFA program), as well as finding the study material to be quite interesting and thought provoking.
In terms of the exam itself I found it very very difficult the first time around, but routine (best description I could think of) for the repeat. I don’t feel it was easier because I was much more familiar with the material as I was probably no better prepared than my initial effort. Having attempted CFA2 twice myself I consider that program to be one that is quite unfair to be honest, it asks questions much different to how it’s presented in the reading material. At least the CAIA program keeps “within the margins of the page” and asks questions within the remit of the LOS, if you’ve reviewed the material well you should know the answer, if you haven’t then you won’t know the answer, that seems fair to me. So with that I mind I would consider CAIA2 to be easier and quite a good deal fairer to candidates than CFA2 (and by the logic that CFA3 is most likely more difficult than CFA2, probably easier than CFA3 also).
My main criticism of the CAIA is that different papers for every candidate can make it seem quite variable in difficulty. I understand the numbers taking the exam are low, and thus the use of a 2-week window with multiple testing centres across the world make standardising the exam too much of a risk in terms of candidates finding out the exam questions in advance. It’s a weakness of the program none-the-less. In addition, the lack of genuine sample questions within the core cirriculum is a serious black mark of the program.
In terms of the program being focused towards due diligence of Alts, I consider that argument to be weak. For one reason, DD is an important concept of making investment decisions in the AI industry, so obviously it will be of significant importance to portfolio managers/traders who are actively involved in the industry. I think the concepts considered over the course of the 2 levels can be quite important tools for industry participants across all functions, not just a back-office role, in fact I consider it more relevant to a front-office environment.
